Thomas Paine - The Age of Reason

[MetalMeister]

Well, I have been studying up on Thomas Paine....

Of particular interest is the second quoted box at the bottom.   

Seems he was pretty much a delinquent man until he accidentally and through a mutual acquaintance, met Benjamin Franklin, while Big Ben was over in Europe and only knowing Paine for a few days wrote him a letter giving him a good report upon his arrival in the new colony.  For sure not a thing that Paine deserved.  Paine was pretty much a fraud and not a good one at that.  If it were not for Ben Franklin, Paine would never had set foot on these shores, most likely.

Paine got some lucky breaks because of his friendship with Franklin and ended up as an editor of a magazine.  Of course during those days a magazine wasn't but a few pages and your average high school graduate, or below, could do it.  And that is about how bright Paine was...

So Paine gets all these bright ideas, similar to and prior to "The Age of Reason", and here is what Benjamin Franklin had to say to his friend Paine:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=58

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]


DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin

Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 7 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 8

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 9 Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 10 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 11 In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 12

[sidewinder]

OK, so did YOU read the book or will you be content to cite a book report from a southern baptist web site which addresses NOT the content of the writing but rather cites the alleged outrage of a close friend and other politicians.  

Sort of an ad hominem attack by proxy if you ask me.  I will be happy to discuss substance and content dispassionately and any time in the future.

No doubt there's controversy considering the subject, that's why Paine waited until near the end of his life to pen the book.  He makes that clear in the forward to book I.  One must consider the time and position various churches held among the population.  

Additionally, I have read much of Franklin’s writing and frankly that letter does not sound like my man Benjamin he is far more eloquent.   I won’t go chasing my tail here because as I said I truly do care not one bit how you believe that is entirely up to you.  

I will now play your game of cut and paste;  some quotes from Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography.
 

"My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself" (Autobiography, p. 66).

"Charmed to a degree of enthusiasm with this mode of disputing, I adopted it, and renouncing blunt contradictions, and direct and positive argument, I assumed the character of a humble questioner. The perusal of Shaftesbury and Collins had made me a skeptic; and, being previously so as to many doctrines of Christianity, I found Socrates' method to be both the safest for myself, as well as the most embarrassing to those against whom I applied it. It soon afforded me singular pleasure; I incessantly practiced it; and became very adroit in obtaining, even from persons of superior understanding, concessions of which they did not foresee the consequence" (Ibid, p. 17).

"I began to be regarded, by pious souls, with horror, either as an apostate or an Atheist" (Ibid, p. 22).

"Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist" (Ibid, p. 66).

Strange disparity between what that church site says and What Franklin his self describes as his religious belief.  Paine declared himself a Deist also.  These were not Godless men rather, men of reason and deep thinkers who did not buy into the organized religion BS.  Why would a brilliant busy thinker such as Franklin scrape this “delinquent” (as you say) Paine out of Europe and set him up in the America’s?  Also you allude that Franklin “helped” Paine’s pamphleteering subtly suggesting that Ben not Thomas may have penned all the writing for which Paine became famous for.  That's really a stretch as they were like thinkers in most respects. 

Since you like letters written by old Ben how about this one to a friend in England

"I agreed with you in sentiments concerning the Old Testament, and thought the clause in our [Pennsylvania] Constitution, which required the members of the Assembly to declare their belief that the whole of it was given by divine inspiration, had better have been omitted. That I had opposed the clause; but, being overpowered by numbers, and fearing more in future might be grafted on it, I prevailed to have the additional clause, 'that no further or more extended profession of faith should ever be exacted.' I observed to you, too, that the evil of it was the less, as no inhabitant, nor any officer of government, except the members of Assembly, was obliged to make the declaration.

"So much for that letter; to which I may now add, that there are several things in the Old Testament impossible to be given by divine inspiration; such as the approbation ascribed to the angel of the Lord of that abominably wicked and detestable action of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. If the rest of the book were like that, I should rather suppose it given by inspiration from another quarter, and renounce the whole" (Works, Vol. x., p. 134).
 

I can't believe it.  I suggest you read a book and you start a thread to malign Paine because he tells it like it is without even reading the forward.   Geeez talk about cognitive dissonance.  What, you afraid you will suffer spontaneous combustion by casting your eyes on the pages?  

    

[MetalMeister]

Oh, I am definitely reading the book on archive.org but it is missing a few pages...

I know the Deist's position well and have for close to 30 years.

The first thing Paine wants to attack is the Bible itself, which is a critical mistake in logical thinking.

But poor Thomas Paine did not have the advantage we enjoy with so much knowledge, history, archeology, geology, etc that we have at our fingertips today.

My guess is that Paine, given even just a little of the evidence we have today, would have burned all his works in the fireplace and recanted.  But, he does not get that chance.

There is more evidence to the authenticity of the Bible than any other book in antiquity by factors of 1000s to 1.

There is no defense against the Old Testament because it was carried around by the Jews for the largest part of 1700 years.

There are many, too numerous to mention, archeological confirmations, geological, historical, etc that confirm the authenticity of the document.

Debates related to that have all been made and completely refuted in decades past.

The interesting part is that the Jews themselves were expecting a Messiah, they simply did not know their own scriptures well enough to see in them that the suffering Messiah would be in the earth first.  They glossed over the few verses that mention Him and just wanted to be delivered from the oppression on foreign occupiers.

The basic problem was that they wanted what they wanted and did not care about what God intended and wrote in the Book.

Now, you make mention with the problem of humans writing what is accepted to be the Word of God.

If I went to the local elementary school campus and selected a boy or girl out of the 1000 that are there and told them they would be a Doctor or lawyer in 20 years they would all but laugh me off campus because they would ultimately reason that I could not possibly know that for sure and was probably insane at best.

But that is precisely what happened many times in the Old Testament and we might think it was written by man under his own influences but those Jews knew far different because they had been there and had seen first hand, over the space of a thousand years, predictions come true, time and again exactly the way things were written.

Everybody agrees that the Old Testament was finished long, long, long before Jesus was born.  Even the harshest of critics agrees with that.  So knowing that it was written during that time frame many hundreds of years prior to the birth of Jesus is a starting point to reason "in this age".

The next logical argument is that someone EXTREMELY knowledgeable in the Old Testament was able to contrive the story of Jesus based on scriptures that virtually everyone else had overlooked because almost all the Jews except Joseph and Mary were caught off guard.

Forget about the New Testament.  It's not important to this argument since it was not even written until well after Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind.

So, either there was Mary and Joseph and they concocted the entire story and got hundreds of people to believe it, OR some crafty individuals came up with this story and got more and more people to believe it and now this concocted story has way over a billion current living adherents, OR the story is exactly what happened.

One thing is for sure and is a prerequisite, that the Jews in political and synagogue power were not even the slightest bit interested in a Jesus being the Messiah because he was not the conquering Messiah written about consistently for 1700 years they carried around these documents/scriptures through all those years.

Now, if Joseph and Mary made all this up then I find it amazing that they were able to convince hundreds and thousands of people to believe something that did not actually happen.

Maybe more  believable is that a couple of EXTREMELY educated Jews saw those very few scriptures that everyone else had missed and came up with the entire story of Jesus and were able to convince hundreds and thousands of Jews to tell this story and completely and utterly reject the reigning Jewish political leaders and church leaders.

And then I suppose we could say that some Roman conquerors and occupiers studied those scriptures so astutely as to find those scriptures that mentioned the Messiah's birth, life, and death, etc and they concocted the whole thing so they could obliterate all the religious tradition and dogma of the Jewish people.

What is left?  Only that is happened just they way it happened.

To believe that someone concocted this story takes way more BLIND faith than to realize it must be true.

But if you want to believe someone successfully concocted it then go right ahead and throw all logic out the window because that person, how crafty he would have had to be, has never been born on this earth.

There is no logic against these facts that can stand up to the test of history, geology, archeology, etc...

If I go out and make up a story today and get a few people to believe it and they go and tell other people, and other people, and other people, then eventually I might have a story that could be handed down as a ghost story or at best a myth. 

But the very idea that my story could stand the test of time for 2,000 years and have billions of living and deceased adherents defies all imagination.

So, after 2,000 years, what do we have in the world today?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

Religions:
   Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
Christians 33.32% (of which Roman Catholics 16.99%, Protestants 5.78%, Orthodox 3.53%, Anglicans 1.25%), Muslims 21.01%, Hindus 13.26%, Buddhists 5.84%, Sikhs 0.35%, Jews 0.23%, Baha'is 0.12%, other religions 11.78%, non-religious 11.77%, atheists 2.32% (2007 est.)

So, summarizing the CIA data, we have Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, and the remaining 25% are pretty much clueless and could believe virtually anything.  Ooops, add the Hindus in there because they believe virtually anything with their 1000s of gods.

Now we have 38%+ and add in the Buddhists because they admit they are clueless and that gives us 44%+ that could believe virtually anything depending on how the wind blows and the sun shines, and where the earth is in it's relation to the sun and moon.

So that gives us 56% that have a pretty strong belief in what they think they believe.

Out of that 56%, 60% associate themselves with Christianity and 40% with (Mohammed, Islam), i.e. Muslim.

Now, does it make any sense to you, AT ALL, that I could be such a great story teller that I could get 2.24 BILLION people to believe my story?

Duh?

We know Mohammad lived.  That much is absolute history, confirmed, rock solid, irrefutable.  This guy was born around 570 AD and died in 632 AD.  52-ish years old.

Now, since we know Mohammad lived, one might think he is more believable but Christians say he concocted his visions.  But that does not take away from the fact that those who follow him have been killing people for 1600 years and still the terror of the world.

On the opposing side, we have Jesus who never took up arms against anybody and up until the 4th century, long about 325 AD there is no recorded history that says any Christian at any time ever took up arms against anyone for any reason (but one would assume possibly if his house were being broken into, but history says otherwise).  These millions of crazy Christians refused 100% NOT to worship any Caesar of the Roman Empire they were under for 300 years.

Okay.

We have very violent blood thirsty people on the Muslim side and completely peaceful some might even say pacifists on the Christian side.

Who ya gonna believe?

Thomas Paine was an illogical quack.  I am two chapters into his book and because I know so much history, archeology, geology, etc, I see all the holes in his arguments.

Of course, if I didn't have all this knowledge then I might for sure see some merit in what he says.

But Ben Franklin dismissed him without hardly a thought because Ben Franklin had seen over, and over, and over how true Christians were peaceful, law abiding, loving, generous, kind people.

Who ya gonna believe?  A clerk that cheated at his excise job but was slick with words nonetheless, an opportunist?

Or ya gonna believe a guy that went around healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, making the lame to walk, curing lepers, bringing out nothing but the best in people because they believed in the miracles He did as well as his complete knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and his love for all those he met who were poor, unhealthy, downcast and downtrodden, weak, and insignificant to the political and church leaders of His time?

I think the truth is quite obvious...   

[MetalMeister]

So, since you and Ben are friends, tell me exactly what year Ben wrote that about Thomas Paine.

Also, who compiled the autobiography.  No typewriters in those days or did he finish it early and just help onto it?  how many revisions did he do?

Just a little information that I need from you to infer more out of this. 

Keep in mind that Ben started his autobio in 1771 and he died in 1790 at the age of 84.

Dying at 84 then is about like dying at 110 now.  No modern medical technology to prolong lives in those days.

I will now play your game of cut and paste;  some quotes from Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography.
 
Since you like letters written by old Ben how about this one to a friend in England

[sidewinder]

You could start your own religion.

[sidewinder]

You are kidding right? 

Look my time is far more valuable than to enter into argument or debate of any depth in this age old argument.  I can’t change anyone’s mind but can only point out that there are many beliefs and many variations in religious literature.  You put out your opinion and can only suggest to you sources of other information. 

I don’t care what conversations or letters were exchanged between Paine and Franklin as it has no bearing on anything to do with the position Paine presented in his last writings.  I happen to find “The Age of Reason” a clear dissection of the Christian bible which raises valid questions about the proliferation of a religion and all religious organizations. 

Take the position stated in the words written and examine them on their own merit not dragging in all kinds of personal opinions that may or may not have occurred between the author and his friends.

Either a thing is true and proven beyond any doubt whatsoever or it is not.  My view is that all this cannot be proven, nor disproven and every person must make up their own mind. 

I know people, and after years of personal observation I know that generally they all operate out of self-interest.   ALL OF THEM.  Some are more giving than others but in the end it is mans’ own self interest that drives and motivates practically every action.  It is this knowledge that assures me that ANY organized religion is in existence due to this self interest.  This self interest has resulted in an estimated 809 million deaths in religious wars.  Death is a serious business most especially when it might include you.  I see a rise in conflict among the religious factions and that disturbs me as I have no dog in the fight but if I live long enough might get dragged into a fight over the most preposterous shit.  Moreover, it will likely escalate and extend to include my grandchildren and that is not the life I wish for them.  I view people who’s minds have become overly obsessed with religious matter as borderline insane and generally avoid them.
 
You can cite atrocities by crazy muslins and I can point out the Westboro Baptist church.  The world is full of people crazy as hell.  And it’s all based on some books that may or may not contain the entire truth.  It’s the half truths that perpetuate and confuse otherwise rational people such as yourself.  Only you can completely examine ALL information available to you and decide what is in your own best interest.  That’s the beauty of individualism and really the greatest of God’s gifts to man.

 I believe that God grants us the miracle of life and beyond that you are on your own. That the only obligation you have to that miracle is to sustain and nurture that life and the resulting offspring while doing no harm to others.  Should another violate the second part of that obligation you are obligated to protect that which is granted to you by taking appropriate action because the party is causing harm and has violated his very simple obligation. 

I know that’s simplistic and not very well expressed but it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.  Outside of that, it’s all BS. 

Look, I like debate, and I like you, but I have two pork butts and a huge brisket that I need to get smoked before the weather sets in here.  I modified my little smoker to run on several sources of heat which I want to test and I really need to watch the markets while all this is going on.
Sorry if anything I said inflames you so, to close I can only say I ain’t buying any of it.   And, “Nothing is as it appears” 

[MetalMeister]

Ha, ha 

That ain't gonna happen.  The story I follow is the only true one out of thousands of them of which most have come and gone.

You could start your own religion.

[MetalMeister]

Kidding about what?  I thought you wanted to have a discussion to examine the merits of Paine?

I did not have to read far before I realized his first mistake.  And then others.  But I meant what I said about him that if he lived today he would recant everything based on the facts, if he took the time to examine them.

You are kidding right? 

I don't care either but the letter was just something I stumbled on after I had read Paine's short bio in Wikipedia and found it interesting.  Got that letter with the first Google.  I have known about Wallbuilders for a long time and they do not put something on that website if it is not back up by the original.  In many cases they have the originals and if they do not the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian or other top notch keepers of history do and they make reference to the source.

The questions the age of reason raises are valid ones, of course, but easily answered with all of today's knowledge that exists.

I don’t care what conversations or letters were exchanged between Paine and Franklin as it has no bearing on anything to do with the position Paine presented in his last writings.  I happen to find “The Age of Reason” a clear dissection of the Christian bible which raises valid questions about the proliferation of a religion and all religious organizations. 

Yes, every person has to make up their own mind.  Based on the evidence alone it is a pretty easy decision, in my humble analyst's opinion.  Not sure exactly what you are referring to that cannot be proven.

Either a thing is true and proven beyond any doubt whatsoever or it is not.  My view is that all this cannot be proven, nor disproven and every person must make up their own mind. 

A lot of death in history due to so-called religious wars, I agree 100%.  But that has no weight as evidence for the making a case for the truth's validity or against it.

I know people, and after years of personal observation I know that generally they all operate out of self-interest.   ALL OF THEM.  Some are more giving than others but in the end it is mans’ own self interest that drives and motivates practically every action.  It is this knowledge that assures me that ANY organized religion is in existence due to this self interest.  This self interest has resulted in an estimated 809 million deaths in religious wars.  Death is a serious business most especially when it might include you.  I see a rise in conflict among the religious factions and that disturbs me as I have no dog in the fight but if I live long enough might get dragged into a fight over the most preposterous shit.  Moreover, it will likely escalate and extend to include my grandchildren and that is not the life I wish for them.  I view people who’s minds have become overly obsessed with religious matter as borderline insane and generally avoid them.

I have no idea how Westboro Baptist Church gets off calling themselves a Christian church?   

Take the Catholic church for an example of half truths.  It is full of half truths.  Check out this website that dissects the Catholic church's main doctrines: 

http://carm.org/roman-catholicism

and you will realize what a twisted piece of junk it truly is.  So much based on half truths or no truth at all.

Remember when you read about the Catholic Church and Vietnam on www.reformation.org  ?

If you thought that was something, check out CARM and you will now why many of those 809 million deaths occured.

You can cite atrocities by crazy muslins and I can point out the Westboro Baptist church.  The world is full of people crazy as hell.  And it’s all based on some books that may or may not contain the entire truth.  It’s the half truths that perpetuate and confuse otherwise rational people such as yourself.  Only you can completely examine ALL information available to you and decide what is in your own best interest.  That’s the beauty of individualism and really the greatest of God’s gifts to man.

If we are own our own after being granted life then how do we account for all the other miracles that people witness?

I believe that God grants us the miracle of life and beyond that you are on your own. That the only obligation you have to that miracle is to sustain and nurture that life and the resulting offspring while doing no harm to others.  Should another violate the second part of that obligation you are obligated to protect that which is granted to you by taking appropriate action because the party is causing harm and has violated his very simple obligation. 

I know that’s simplistic and not very well expressed but it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.  Outside of that, it’s all BS. 

I don't eat pork any more after I read about dormant viruses and other bad things that it can carry.

But I will take a double helping of the brisket!!!!!!!  And some aged whiskey to wash it down with... 

Look, I like debate, and I like you, but I have two pork butts and a huge brisket that I need to get smoked before the weather sets in here.  I modified my little smoker to run on several sources of heat which I want to test and I really need to watch the markets while all this is going on.

I don't take anything personally at all so I'm not suffering from any inflammation.  I like a good debate, also!  Makes the mind younger.

Sorry if anything I said inflames you so, to close I can only say I ain’t buying any of it.   And, “Nothing is as it appears”